Sayı Issue :37 Mayıs May 2021 Makalenin Geliş Tarihi Received Date: 09/03/2021 Makalenin Kabul Tarihi Accepted Date: 30/05/2021
Determination of Quality Standards for Management and Administrative Services in Science Teacher
Training Programs
1DOI: 10.26466/opus. 893880
*
Adem Yılmaz* – Seyit Aydın**
* Dr. Öğr. Üyesi, Kastamonu Üniversitesi, Eğitim Fakültesi, Kastamonu/Türkiye E-Posta: yilmazadem@kastamonu.edu.tr ORCID: 0000-0002-1424-8934
** Prof. Dr., Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt Üniversitesi, Meslek Yüksekokulu, Ankara/Türkiye E-Posta:seyitaydin@ybu.edu.tr ORCID: 0000-0001-7880-9780
Abstract
A country's competitiveness and development efforts are determined by the qualified manpower it has trained.
Reaching qualified manpower is possible with a good higher education. At this point, quality and competencies of higher education institutions come to the fore. In this direction, families are constantly researching for their children to have a good university education and take into account quality indicators to make a good choice.
In this study, science teacher training programs, which are higher education programs, were examined in terms of quality standards for management and administrative services. A quality standard scale has been developed within the scope of the research. The survey method, which is one of the quantitative research meth- ods, was used in the research process. While determining the research sample, criterion sampling and appro- priate sampling types were preferred. 1352 people participated in the study voluntarily and willingly. As a data collection tool, a Likert-type scale with 7 factors and 58 items was used by the researchers. The data obtained within the scope of the research were analyzed using SPSS 20.0 and LISREL 9.2 package programs.
As a result of the exploratory factor analysis of the developed scale, it was seen that the factor loads varied between .402 and .907. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value was determined to be .817. It was found that the total variance explained was 55.93% and Cronbach's Alpha value was .907. As a result of the confirmatory factor analysis, it was found that X2/Df value was 1.93, RMSEA value was .04, NNFI value was .95, SRMR value was .07 and AGFI value was .75. According to the results of the research, a valid and reliable scale was devel- oped and it was determined that the stakeholder opinions (prospective teachers, teachers, faculty members) contributed to the quality standards at “a very significant” level.
Key Words: Science teacher education program, management and administrative services, quality standards, scale development
1Bu araştırma 18-22 Nisan 2018 tarihleri arasında Antalya’da düzenlenen 27th International Conference on Educational Sciences (ICES UEBK) kongresinde sözlü (özet) bildiri olarak sunulmuş olup birinci yazarın
Sayı Issue :37 Mayıs May 2021 Makalenin Geliş Tarihi Received Date: 09/03/2021 Makalenin Kabul Tarihi Accepted Date: 30/05/2021
Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Yetiştirme Programlarında Yönetim ve İdari Hizmetlere Yönelik Kalite
Standartlarının Belirlenmesi
* Öz
Bir ülkenin rekabet edebilme gücü ve kalkınma çabaları yetiştirmiş olduğu nitelikli insan gücü ile belirlen- mektedir. Nitelikli insan gücü ise iyi bir yükseköğrenim ile mümkün olmaktadır. Bu noktada yükseköğrenim kurumlarının niteliği, kalitesi ve yetkinlikleri ön plana çıkmaktadır. Bu doğrultuda aileler, çocuklarının iyi bir üniversite eğitimi almaları için sürekli araştırma yapmakta ve iyi bir seçim yapmak için kalite göstergelerini dikkate almaktadır. Yapılan bu çalışmada, bir yükseköğretim programı olan fen bilgisi öğretmen yetiştirme programları yönetim ve idari hizmetlere yönelik kalite standartları açısından incelenmiştir. Araştırma kapsamında bir kalite standardı ölçeği geliştirilmiştir. Araştırma sürecinde nicel araştırma yöntemlerinden olan tarama yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Araştırma örneklemi belirlenirken ölçüt örnekleme ve uygun örnekleme türleri tercih edilmiştir. Araştırmaya gönüllü ve istekli olarak 1352 kişi katılmıştır. Veri toplama aracı olarak, araştırmacılar tarafından geliştirilen likert türünde 7 faktörlü ve 58 maddeden oluşan bir ölçek kullanılmıştır.
Araştırma kapsamında elde edilen veriler, SPSS 20.0 ve LISREL 9.2 paket programları kullanılarak çözüm- lenmiştir. Geliştirilen ölçeğin açımlayıcı faktör analizi sonucu faktör yüklerinin .402 ile .907 arasında değiştiği görülmüştür. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin değerinin ise .817 olduğu belirlenmiştir. Açıklanan toplam varyansın
%55.93 ve Cronbach’s Alpha değerinin ise .907 olduğu bulunmuştur. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi sonucunda X2/Sd değerinin 1.93, RMSEA değerinin .04, NNFI değerinin .95, SRMR değerinin .07 ve AGFI değerinin .75 olduğu bulunmuştur. Araştırma sonuçlarına göre geçerliği ve güvenirliği sağlanan bir ölçek geliştirilmiş ve paydaş görüşlerinin (öğretmen adayları, öğretmenler, öğretim üyeleri) kalite standartlarına “oldukça önemli” düzeyinde katılım sağladıkları belirlenmiştir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Fen bilgisi öğretmen yetiştirme programı, yönetim ve idari hizmetler, kalite standartları, ölçek geliştirme
Introduction
A country's competitiveness and development efforts are determined by the qualified manpower it has trained. Reaching qualified manpower is possible with a good higher education (Adıgüzel, 2008). The quality of education and training services has an important place in the develop- ment, growth, development and creation of qualified manpower of a co- untry (Özden, 2000). Countries that have developed and proven themsel- ves in the field of technology in this regard make large investments in education systems every year (Bakioğlu and Ülker, 2015). Because the most important and last step that individuals have taken before starting their professional life is higher education (Ayaydın, 2010; Kalaycı, 2008).
The structure, working style, quality indicators and competitiveness of higher education institutions are changing with each passing day (Güleş, 2013). Thanks to the internet, people can examine the whole world and be aware of all developments. This situation also affects the universities and higher education programs that families will choose for their children. Fa- milies are now comparing universities and prefer the ones that have pro- ven themselves in terms of quality, standards and competences (Yılmaz, 2018). An important component of universities that have proven themsel- ves with respect to their competence is education faculties and teacher tra- ining units. Teachers are groups that direct society and play an active role in the creation of qualified manpower, especially from the onset of child- hood (Eacute and Esteve, 2000). For this reason, teacher training programs in higher education institutions should have a structure that can keep up with the needs of the age and operate at certain standards (Yanpar-Yelken, Çelikkaleli, and Çapri, 2007). Some new concepts emerge in line with these purposes in higher education. These are; quality, accreditation, standards, evidence and indicators (European Network of Quality Assurance Agen- cies [ENQA], 2008).
Among these concepts, only the concepts of quality and standard have been mentioned in accordance with the research subject. The concept of quality has many equivalents in the literature. According to the Turkish Language Institution (TDK, 2021a), quality is defined as “Qualification”, while the concept of Qualification is defined as “the feature, qualification,
and arbitrariness that indicates how something is and that separates it from other things.” As it can be understood from the related definition, it is not pos- sible to use the concept of quality in all scientific fields with a single defi- nition. Therefore, it is necessary to handle the concept of quality in educa- tion separately. Quality education can be defined as follows it is the coexistence of many features such as perfection (free from mistakes), func- tionality (ability to address many disciplines), economy (gain from time, space and workforce) and keeping up with the era (Delfino and Persico, 2007; Saç, 2016).
It goes without saying that, it is inevitable for a quality education to have certain standards (Bakioğlu and Ülker, 2015). Especially having stan- dards that are valid all over the world and assuring certain competencies will seriously affect the quality of education. The notion of “standard” ac- cording to TDK (2021b) is "the rule put in order to determine a product, a wor- king method, the amount to be produced, the amount of money in the budget" in an enterprise. The equivalent of this concept in educational sciences can be defined as all kinds of indicators, concrete outputs and general expres- sions given to the services provided in order to determine the competen- cies of an educational process and to examine its responsiveness to the needs (Hesapçıoğlu, 2003). The first large-scale study on determining qu- ality standards in teacher training programs in our country was carried out in 1998. Council of Higher Education (CoHE/YÖK) and the World Bank (WB) conducted this project entitled "Teacher Education Standards and Accreditation in Turkey" and a number of accreditation and standard criteria were determined then (YÖK, 1998, 1999a, 1999b).
As for quality standards in higher education studies in Turkey they seem to have accelerated after 1998. First of all, quality and accreditation procedures were performed in engineering programs and with the achie- vement of satisfactory results, these practices were also used in teacher training programs (Turan, 2013). Science education and science teacher training programs have a special place among teacher training programs in our country. Because science education is an important branch of sci- ence that contains many different disciplines and prepares the individual for life. Understanding and applying the innovations and technological developments required by the age is basically possible with science edu-
cation. For this reason, determining the quality standards of science teac- her training programs would be an appropriate attempt. Many studies have been conducted on science teacher training programs. These studies take the form of various shape like; comparison studies (Ersoy, 2006;
Kocakaya, 2015; Korkmaz, 2013), research on professional competence (Baştürk, 2008; Seferoğlu, 2004), studies on program development (Demirbaş and Yağbasan, 2005; Özyurt, 2014; Tukur, 2016), teacher prob- lems (Sançmış, 2014), research done for determination of science teacher competencies (MEB, 2002, 2006, 2008) and the ones concentrating upon teacher training policies (Çeliker, 2015; Meraler, 2011). However, it has been observed that there are not enough number of studies regarding quality standards. Therefore, in the study, "Determination of Quality Standards for Management and Administrative Services in Science Teacher Training Programs" was aimed. The following sub-goals are in- cluded in the research:
1. Development of a valid and reliable quality standard scale for management and administrative services,
2. Implementation of the developed scale and determination of stakeholder opinions.
Method
In this study, survey method, which is one of the quantitative research methods, was preferred. The survey method is a model that provides in- depth information about an event, fact or situation and aims to describe the situation without intervening in the process (Delice, 2015; Fraenkel and Wallen, 2003). In the literature, it is seen that the survey method is frequently preferred in determining the quality standards in teacher train- ing programs and performing scale development practices (Erişen, 2001;
Güleş, 2013; Turan, 2013; Yılmaz, 2018).
The Study Group
The study group of the research was determined by two different sam- pling methods. These sampling methods are criteria and appropriate sam- pling. The reason why these sampling methods are preferred is that they
provide researchers with convenience and usefulness in terms of time, ef- fort and cost (Büyüköztürk, Kılıç Çakmak, Akgün, Karadeniz, and Demi- rel, 2016). The research has two working groups. Initially, 65 science fac- ulty members, 128 science teachers and 217 prospective science teachers participated in the pilot study. In the second and final application, 206 sci- ence faculty members, 501 science teachers and 645 prospective science teachers participated.
Ethical Statement and Compliance with Rules
During the development of the quantitative data collection tool used in the research, the necessary permissions were obtained from the rightful authors for the scales used, and references were made within the scientific framework. In addition, the participants were informed and necessary permissions were obtained through the informed consent forms. The en- tire research process was conducted within the framework of ethical rules.
Development Process of Data Collection Tool and Data Collection
In the research, "Quality Standards Scale for Management and Adminis- trative Services in Science Teacher Training Programs" was used as the data collection tool. These sub-steps were followed in the development process of the scale (Baş, 2008; Karasar, 2006; McMillan and Schumacher, 2006):
• Establishing a conceptual infrastructure,
• Creating an item pool,
• Getting expert opinion,
• Pilot implementation and analysis,
• Making validity and reliability applications,
• Taking expert opinion and finalizing the scale.
Research data were collected over a period of approximately 6 months within the scope of the doctoral thesis study. The results of the data col- lection tool regarding validity, reliability and application results are ex- plained in detail in the findings and discussion section.
Data Analysis
Research data were analyzed in two stages. First, exploratory and con- firmatory factor analysis was conducted during the scale development phase. These analyzes were analyzed with SPSS 20.0 and LISREL 9.2 pack- age programs. In the second stage, the data collected with the help of the developed scale were subjected to descriptive and inferential statistics.
Later, because the application data did not show normal distribution, the analyzes were completed using non-parametric tests (Kruskal Wallis and Mann Whitney U).
Findings
In the first stage of the research, a scale development application with va- lidity and reliability was carried out. For this purpose, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were performed, respectively. Table 1 pre- sents KMO and Bartlett test results for scale items.
Table 1. KMO and Bartlett test result
KMO Coefficient .817
Bartlett Test Chi-square value 14037,129
Df 1653
p (p<.05) .000
When Table 1 is examined, it is seen that the KMO value is .817 and the Bartlett Test value is at the level of p <.05 (p = .000). These results indicate that the items of the scale can be factored and the sample size is sufficient.
Table 2 shows the eigenvalue and variance rates of the scale.
When Table 2 is examined, it is seen that there are 11 factors with ei- genvalues of 1 and above. However, while determining the factor struc- ture, it is frequently emphasized in the literature to decide together with the scree plot. The scree plot graph is presented in Figure 1.
Table 2. Eigenvalue and variance rates
Factor Eigenvalue Variance (%) Cumulative (%)
1 10,014 17,265 17,265
2 5,568 9,599 26,865
3 4,706 8,114 34,978
4 3,863 6,661 41,639
5 3,589 6,187 47,826
6 2,462 4,245 52,072
7 2,241 3,863 55,935
8 1,729
9 1,474
10 1,293
11 1,278
When Figure 1 is examined, it is seen that the breaking point has a 7-factor structure. When both the eigenvalue table and the scree plot results are analyzed comparatively, it can be stated that it would be appropriate for the current scale to have a 7-factor structure. In Table 3, item factor loads and common variance results are presented. In studies on scale develop- ment in the field of educational sciences, the part that researchers spend the most time is usually the part where the number of factors is deter- mined (Yılmaz and Aydın, 2017).
Figure 1. Scree plot graph
It is of great importance to determine the factors whose eigenvalue re- sults are determined by the number of factors and whose eigenvalues are
greater than 1 (Büyüköztürk, 2010). In the relevant literature, being con- cerned about increasing the quality of the scale and keeping the standards high, it is stated that choosing the eigenvalue ratio of 2 and above signifi- cantly affects the quality of the scale (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007). For this reason, while determining the factor in the scale in question, factors of 2 and above were taken into account.
Table 3. Item factor loads and common variance results
Factor Item No Factor Load Total Variance
Factor 1
S1 .768
17.265
S2 .722
S4 .706
S5 .690
S6 .690
S3 .678
S8 .672
S10 .666
S7 .655
S9 .625
S11 .618
S12 .504
Factor 2
S11 .862
9.599
S7 .858
S2 .829
S8 .803
S9 .706
S1 .544
S3 .460
S4 .450
S5 .445
S10 .420
S6 .402
Factor 3
S2 .810
8.114
S10 .768
S11 .753
S3 .722
S1 .636
S6 .572
S4 .527
S5 .499
S7 .484
S9 .425
S8 .422
Factor 4
S7 .771
6.661
S2 .691
S5 .667
S3 .654
S4 .645
S6 .630
S1 .528
Factor 5
S2 .819
6.187
S1 .776
S3 .761
S6 .750
S5 .731
S4 .643
S7 .616
Factor 6
S1 .907
4.245
S4 .890
S2 .876
S5 .875
S3 .754
Factor 7
S2 .874
3.863
S5 .836
S4 .780
S3 .595
S1 .554
In Table 3, item factor loads varied between .504 and .768 for the first factor, between .402 and .862 for the second factor, between .422 and .810 for the third factor, and between .528 and .771 for the fourth factor, for the fifth factor between .616 and .819, for the sixth factor between .754 and .907, and for the seventh factor between .554 and .874 values. In Table 4, within the scope of the reliability analysis, the comparison of the averages of the upper group of 27% of the subgroups, the Cronbach's Alpha values at the item and dimension level, and the item total correlation results are presented.
Table 4. Reliability analysis results Factor Item No
t-value of Sub/Up- pergroup mean dif-
ference
Item-Total Correlations
Cronbach’s Alpha If Item Deleted
Factor
Factor 1
S1 12.741 .572 .887
.901
S2 8.148 .408 .892
S3 10.027 .486 .892
S4 14.309 .583 .888
S5 9.975 .456 .891
S6 10.187 .492 .891
S7 8.258 .379 .894
S8 7.030 .375 .894
S9 9.853 .461 .895
S10 12.130 .559 .891
S11 9.191 .430 .895
S12 7.237 .370 .899
Factor 2
S1 11.727 .539 .845
.868
S2 4.595 .214 .848
S3 3.749 .209 .863
S4 4.960 .266 .861
S5 11.126 .480 .857
S6 11.064 .515 .850
S7 8.825 .400 .859
S8 5.307 .307 .865
S9 9.196 .462 .864
S10 4.275 .236 .859
S11 5.374 .238 .854
Factor 3
S1 2,770 .126 .849
.855
S2 4.715 .281 .829
S3 6.323 .366 .851
S4 .779 .036 .855
S5 2.795 .170 .854
S6 .445 .042 .857
S7 4.836 .290 .826
S8 5.208 .301 .830
S9 4.628 .237 .840
S10 6.180 .343 .852
S11 4.474 .275 .825
Factor 4
S1 11.825 .499 .837
.849
S2 7.640 .383 .826
S3 6.902 .338 .832
S4 9.505 .430 .830
S5 10.809 .543 .821
S6 10.804 .494 .831
S7 10.717 .477 .818
Factor 5
S1 7.213 .391 .845
.872
S2 5.107 .269 .844
S3 7.513 .403 .844
S4 4.291 .251 .869
S5 6.542 .342 .851
S6 5.911 .282 .854
S7 6.989 .350 .865
Factor 6
S1 8.185 .382 .905
.933
S2 6.743 .337 .909
S3 5.399 .275 .948
S4 7.084 .340 .912
S5 7.219 .350 .912
Factor 7
S1 4.760 .222 .855
.849
S2 9.161 .403 .771
S3 5.279 .254 .846
S4 7.721 .363 .814
S5 9.340 .403 .790
Total Cronbach’s Alpha .907 It is significant at the p<0.01 level.
When Table 4 is examined, it is seen that the reliability levels of all scale items and all factors are within appropriate ranges. In addition, the gen- eral Cronbach's Alpha value for the whole scale was found to be .907. It can be said that the item total correlation values are .20 and above, except for a few items, and the items have a sufficient level of correlation. After the applications for the exploratory factor analysis, the results of the con- firmatory factor analysis were given. There is the confirmatory factor anal- ysis path diagram in Figure 2 and the index values of the goodness of fit in Table 5.
Figure 2. Confirmatory factor analysis path diagram
Table 5. Goodness of fit index values
Fit Indices Values Availability Status
X2 2961.06 The appropriate value range
Df 1527 The appropriate value range
X2
/Df 1.93 Perfect fit
P .052 Perfect fit
RMSEA .04 Good/Acceptable fit
NFI .90 Good/Acceptable fit
NNFI .95 Perfect fit
CFI .95 Perfect fit
RMR .08 Good/Acceptable fit
SRMR .07 Good/Acceptable fit
AGFI .75 Low fit
GFI .78 Low fit
CN 190.97 Good/Acceptable fit
When Figure 2 and Table 5 are examined, it is found that X2 value is 2961.06, Df 1527, X2/Df value is 1.93, p significance value is .052, RMSEA value is .04, NFI value is .90, NNFI value is .95, CFI value is .95, RMR value is .08. The SRMR value was found to be .07, the AGFI value to be .75, the GFI value to be .78 and the CN value to be 190.97. When the values of goodness of fit are compared with the criteria in the literature, it is stated that this value is 5 and below is acceptable, 3 and below is at the level of good fit, and a value of 2 and below indicates perfect fit (Calvini, Fini and Ranieri, 2008). When the significance level and the RMSEA index value are controlled, the p significance value is expected to be p> .05 (Kline, 1994). However, this value is often significant at .05 level p <.05. This is a problem arising from the fact that the scale items prepared in likert type are assumed as continuous data (Turan, 2013). When other fit indices were examined, it was determined that they were generally at a good/accepta- ble or perfect fit level.In the second stage of the research, the developed scale was applied. The research results were evaluated on general factors only.
Table 6. Participant views on the scale sub-factors
Standards
Prospective Teachers Teachers Faculty Members
X2 Df p
Difference
(𝐗̅) (𝐗̅) (𝐗̅) Standards for Management
and Organization 4.142 4.186 4.112 21.76 2 .000 2>1, 2>3 Standards for Administrative,
Social and Security Services 3.990 4.133 3.925 7.47 2 .024 2>1 Standards for Guidance Ser-
vices 4.022 4.124 3.931 2.87 2 .237 -
Standards for Human Re-
sources Management 4.074 4.115 4.008 5.04 2 .080
- Standards for the Library,
Technology Center and Facili- ties
4.064 4.138 4.022 3.17 2 .204 -
Accounting and Finance
Standards 4.122 4.258 4.038 14.49 2 .001 2>1, 2>3
Standards to Be Found in Fac-
ulty Management 4.118 4.113 4.040 3.20 2 .202 -
Total Mean 4.070 4.149 4.031 Prospective Teachers: 1, Teachers: 2, Faculty Members: 3
As a result of the scale application, it is seen that teachers have the high- est average and faculty members have the lowest average. In addition, it is seen that there is a significant difference in management and organiza- tion, administrative, social and security services, accounting and financing categories and no significant difference in other factors. These results show that all participants have a significant level of participation in the scale items.
Discussion, Conclusion and Suggestions
This study, in which a scale for “Determination of Quality Standards for Management and Administrative Services in Science Teacher Training Programs” was developed and applied, was examined in two stages. First, a scale that is thought to serve the purpose was developed. During the development of the scale, a conceptual infrastructure was first established in light of the relevant literature and an item pool was prepared. Concep- tual infrastructure and pool of items while creating the "Quality Standards,
Bologna Process, the European Qualifications Framework, Turkey Higher Edu- cation Qualifications Framework, General and Specific Qualifications Towards Teaching Profession, Standards and Accreditation studies conducted by the Min- istry of Education and Council of Higher Education" were considered and made in this field trials and item structures were examined (Yılmaz, 2018, p. 89). Expert opinion should be obtained after creating the item pool (Erkuş, 2012; Turan, 2013).
After taking the expert opinion, the first application of the scale was performed and the results obtained were interpreted. Accordingly, when Table 1 was examined, it was determined that the KMO value was .817. In studies conducted in the field of social sciences, it is reported that this value’s being .50 and above is sufficient (McMillan and Schumacher, 2006;
Özdamar, 2016). This situation is expressed similarly in many studies (Alakurt and Keser, 2015; Aydemir, Koçoğlu and Karalı, 2015; Bozdağ, Uğurel and Güzel, 2014; Kaban, 2013). At the same time, it was determined that the Bartlett test result was significant. Significance of both KMO value and Bartlett test result is the first criterion that should be paid attention to (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2003; Tavşancıl, 2006). These results show that the sample of the application is sufficient and the questions from the item pool can be grouped (Özdamar, 2002).
When Table 2 is examined, the results of the eigenvalue and variance ratios are seen. In scale development practices, the eigenvalue of each fac- tor is expected to be 1 and above (Erkuş, 2012). The higher the eigenvalue ratio is determined, the less error tolerant the scale will become and a more qualified scale structure will be developed (Kline, 1994; Lawshe, 1975).
Accordingly, it is seen that the developed scale consists of 11 factors with an eigenvalue of 1 and above. In addition to the eigenvalue situation, an- other point that should be considered is the variance ratio explained. In single factor structures, this ratio is desired to be 30% and above. For struc- tures with more than one factor, the variance ratio should be 40% and above (Büyüköztürk, 2010; Can, 2016). As a matter of fact, this situation was found at similar rates in scale development studies in the literature (Erişen, 2001; Güleş, 2013; Kaban, 2013). When determining the factor structure of the scale, only eigenvalue and variance ratios are not accepted as criteria. In addition to these results, it is recommended to examine the results of the scree plot and to make factorization studies as a result of
comparing these two results (George and Mallery, 2010). When the scree plot graph in Figure 1 is examined, it is seen that the breaking point of the scale starts to lose its slope after 7 factors. When this situation is compared with the eigenvalue table, it is seen that the eigenvalue ratio started to fall below 2 after the 7th factor. Hence, as a result of evaluating both tables together, it is thought that it would be appropriate to accept a scale struc- ture with 7 factors and a variance ratio of 55.93%. Factors named after the scale structure were determined. To that end, studies on quality standards in the field of teacher training (Erişen, 2001; Güleş, 2013; Kaban, 2013; Tu- ran, 2013; Yılmaz, 2018) were examined and the factors were named. Here, factors such as "Management and Organization, Administrative, Social and Security Services, Guidance Services, Human Resources Manage- ment, Library, Technology Center and Facilities, Accounting and Finance, Faculty Management" are named.
Several different criteria were taken into account in the process of elim- inating the scale items and deciding on the final items. First of all, attention was paid to have item factor loads of .30 and above. When statistics-based sources and graduate studies are examined, it is stated that it is theoreti- cally acceptable to have this value as .30 and above, but it is more appro- priate to select the item factor load value as .40 and above (Brown, 2006;
DeVellis, 2012). For this reason, attention was paid to select those with a factor load of .40 and above in the study. In addition, item factors that do not have a difference of .10 and above, which are called binary values were also examined. Another criterion in item selection is the examination of correlation matrices. Here, it is recommended that there should not be a relationship of .90 and above yet there needs to be a relationship at a me- dium level .50 (Field, 2009). As a matter of fact, when the scale items are examined, it is seen that there are results in appropriate value ranges. Fi- nally, for each scale item, 27% lower group upper group averages were compared and non-significant items were determined and removed grad- ually from the scale. When the item factor loads are examined, it is seen that the lowest item is .402 and the highest item is .907.
When Table 4 is examined regarding the scale structure, it is seen that there are reliability analyses. Accordingly, it was determined that Cronbach's Alpha values were appropriate both at the item level and at
above in educational sciences and social sciences (Büyüköztürk, 2010;
Kane, 2001). Again, it can be stated that the item total correlation values and the lower group upper group averages also have appropriate value ranges. It is possible to find similar results in many studies in the litera- ture. While the lowest reliability factor of the scale was .849, the factor with the highest reliability was determined as .933. The overall reliability coef- ficient of the scale was found to be .907.
After the reliability results of the scale were found sufficient and the factor structure was determined as suitable, the other application i.e, the confirmatory factor analysis phase was started. At this stage, the construct validity, convergent and divergent validity of the scale were examined.
When Figure 2 and Table 5 are examined together, it can be said that item factor loadings, correlation values between factors and sub-items, and in- dex values of goodness of fit are in appropriate and acceptable ranges. It was determined that the X2/Df value was 1.93 and the p value was (.052).
In the literature, it is stated that the acceptable ranges of this value are 5 and below, and if it is 2 and below, it has perfect fit (Şimşek, 2007; Tabach- nick and Fidell, 2007). Again, RMSEA, RMR and SRMR values are said to be acceptable if they are .08 and below. NFI, NNFI, CFI, AGFI and GFI values other than these values are expected to be .90 and above (Çokluk, Şekercioğlu and Büyüköztürk, 2014). However, here AGFI and GFI values were found slightly lower than other indexes. It can be said that this value can be tolerated since the goodness of fit results are high due to the general structure of the scale and the construct validity model is accurate. Another result is the CN (Critical Number) value. This value is expected to be 100 and above. When all the goodness of fit index values are examined, it can be stated that the scale is within the appropriate value ranges.
When the convergent validity results are examined, it is seen that the scale items have significant correlations for each factor and the error coef- ficients are low. When the divergent validity results are examined, it is seen that for each factor, there is no significant correlation between the items in the other factors and the error coefficients are low. Accordingly, it can be said that the scale has both structural, convergent (between items) and divergent (between factors) validity. After a valid and reliable scale was developed, this scale was applied in the second stage. When Table 6 is examined, it is seen that there is a significant difference between the
participants in only 3 factors, and there is no significant difference in the other 4 factors. In general, it is seen that the opinions of the participants are between 3.925 and 4.258 average values. This range indicates that all participants expressed their opinions at a very significant level and that participation rates were high. When the factors with significant differ- ences are examined, it is seen that, in general, teachers have the highest attitude and faculty members have the lowest attitude. There can be many reasons for this situation. Teachers can show a more positive tendency in terms of their professional development, thanks to the related situations and improvement work. As the faculty members are in the academic di- mension of this work, they can delve into the critical aspects since they conduct scientific research at deeper levels. This critical point of view can naturally lead to lower expectations from and opinions about standard items. The prospective teachers, on the other hand, have opinions ate a medium level. They are neither able to do research in the profession as much as teachers nor can they do research as in-depth as faculty members.
Therefore, it can be seen as an expected result that prospective teachers have an intermediate view. As a result of this research, the following sug- gestions can be made;
• The study was conducted with prospective teachers, teachers and faculty members. By expanding the scope of the research, a more comprehensive study can be conducted that includes lawmakers, politicians, exosystemic bodies such as YÖK and MEB.
• On the basis of science education programs, the rate of implemen- tation of quality standards in education faculties can be determined and controlled practically.
• In this study, only some standard dimensions of science teacher training programs were examined. By expanding the scope of the research, quality standards can be determined in other departments and other fields.
• In the research process, only the undergraduate dimension was con- sidered. Research can be carried out in postgraduate, doctorate, other levels with competence and equivalence in art.
• The scale developed within the scope of the research is recom- mended to be used by faculties and units affiliated to the rectorate
References
Adıgüzel, A. (2008). Eğitim fakültelerinde öğretmen eğitimi program standartlarının gerçekleşme düzeyi. Doktora Tezi, Anadolu Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri En- stitüsü. Eskişehir.
Alakurt, T., and Keser, H. (2015). Bilgi paylaşma davranışları ölçeği: Ölçek geliştirme çalışması. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 24(3), 1033-1054.
Ayaydın, A. (2010). Görsel sanatlar eğitiminde standart kavramı. Kastamonu Eğitim Fa- kültesi Dergisi, 18(1), 159-172.
Aydemir, H., Koçoğlu, E., and Karalı, Y. (2015). Grasha-Reichmann ölçeğine göre öğret- men adaylarının öğrenme stillerinin değerlendirilmesi. Kastamonu Eğitim Der- gisi, 24(4), 1881-1896.
Bakioğlu, A., and Ülker, N. (2015). Üniversitede akreditasyon. 1. Basım, Ankara: Nobel Akademi.
Baş, T. (2008). Anket nasıl hazırlanır uygulanır değerlendirilir? (5. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayın Dağıtım.
Baştürk, R. (2008). Fen ve teknoloji alanı öğretmen adaylarının kamu personeli seçme sınavı başarılarının yordanması. İlköğretim Online, 7(2), 323-332.
Bozdağ, S., Uğurel, I., and Güzel, E. (2014). Matematik öğretmen adaylarının ispat ve ispatlamaya yönelik tutumlarının belirlenmesi: Bir ölçek geliştirme çalışması.
Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 23(4), 1585-1600.
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis: For applied research. New York: Guilford.
Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı: İstatistik, araştırma deseni SPSS uygulamaları ve yorum (11. Baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., and Demirel, F. (2016).
Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. 20. Baskı, Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
Can, A. (2016). SPSS ile bilimsel araştırma sürecinde nicel veri analizi. (4.Baskı). Ankara: Pe- gem Akademi.
Calvini, A., Fini, A., and Ranieri M. (2008). Models and instruments for assessing digital competence at school. Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society, (4)3, 183-193.
Çeliker, G. (2015). Eğitim bilimleri ve öğretmen yetiştirme alan uzmanlarının eğitimde program değerlendirme öz-yeterlik düzeylerinin incelenmesi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü. Eskişehir.
Çokluk, O., Şekercioğlu, G., and Büyüköztürk, S. (2014). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
Delfino, M., and Persico, D. (2007). Online or face to face? Experimenting with different techniques in teacher training. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 351-365.
Delice, A. (2015). Karma yöntem desen seçimi. Y. Dede and S. B. Demir (Eds.), Karma yöntem araştırmaları tasarımı ve yürütülmesi. 2. Baskı, Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
Demirbaş, M., and Yağbasan, R. (2005). Türkiye’de etkili fen öğretimi için ilköğretim kurumlarına yönelik olarak gerçekleştirilen program geliştirme çalışmalarının analizi ve karşılaşılan problemlere yönelik çözüm önerileri. Gazi Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi, (6)2, 53-67.
DeVellis, R. F. (2012). Scale development: Theory and applications. Thousand Oaks. SAGE.
Eacute, J., and Esteve, M. (2000). The transformation of the teachers’ role at the end of the twentieth century: New challenges for the future. Educational Review, 52(2), 197-209.
Erişen, Y. (2001). Öğretmen yetiştirme programlarına ilişkin kalite standartlarının belir- lenmesi ve fakültelerin standartlara uygunluğunun değerlendirilmesi. Dok- tora Tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü. Ankara.
Erkuş, A. (2012). Psikolojide ölçek ve ölçek geliştirme-I: Temel kavramlar ve işlemler (1. Baskı).
Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
Ersoy, Y. (2006). TIMSS-R aynasından yansıtmalar-I: Türkiye’de fen bilgisi öğretmenle- rinin genel görünüşü. Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi, 3(1), 19-35.
European Network of Quality Assurance Agencies (ENQA) (2008). Quality procedures in the Eurupen higher education area and beyond: Second ENQA survey. Helsinki:
ENQA.
Fraenkel, J. R., and Wallen, N. E. (2003). How to design and evaluate research in education, (5th Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (Third Ed.). London: SAGE.
George, D., and Mallery, M. (2010). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and ref- erence. Boston: Pearson.
Güleş, F. (2013). Okul öncesi eğitimde fiziksel çevreye ilişkin kalite standartlarının belir- lenmesi. Doktora Tezi, Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü. Konya.
Hesapçıoğlu, M. (2003). Eğitim kurumlarında kalite olgusu ve kalite güvence sistemleri. İstan-
Kaban, A. (2013). Uzaktan eğitim kalite standartlarının belirlenmesi ve Atatürk Üniver- sitesi uzaktan eğitim sisteminin incelenmesi. Doktora Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü. Ankara.
Kalaycı, N. (2008). Yüksekögretimde uygulanan toplam kalite yönetimi sürecinde gözardı edilen unsurlardan “Tky Merkezi” ve “Eğitim Programları”. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, Bahar, 6(2), 163-188.
Kane, M. T. (2001). Current concerns in validity theory. Journal of Educational Measure- ment, 38(4), 319-342.
Karasar, N. (2006). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi (16. Baskı). Ankara: Nobel.
Kline, P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. UKK Routledge:1990.
Kocakaya, P. (2015). Türkiye, Fransa ve İsviçre'de öğrenim gören fen alanları öğretmen adaylarının teknopedagojik yeterliklerinin yapısal eşitlik modeli ile incelen- mesi. Doktora Tezi, Dicle Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü. Diyarbakır.
Korkmaz, H. (2013). Türkiye ve Amerika Birleşik Devletleri’nde kim fen öğretmen- lerinin eğitimcisi olmaktadır? Bir karşılaştırma çalışması. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Özel Sayı (1), 256-270.
Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28, 563-575.
McMillan, J. H., and Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry (sixth Ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB) (2002). Öğretmen yeterlilikleri. Öğretmen Yetiştirme ve Eğitimi Genel Müdürlüğü, Ankara: Millî Eğitim Basımevi.
MEB (2006). Ülkelerin öğretmen yetiştirme sistemleri. Ankara: MEB Yayınevi.
MEB (2008). Öğretmen yeterlilikleri: Öğretmenlik mesleği genel ve özel alan yeterlilikleri. An- kara: Devlet Kitapları Müdürlüğü.
Meraler, S. (2011). Eğitim fakültesi öğrencilerinin yükseköğretimde kaliteye ilişkin görüşlerinin belirlenmesi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Harran Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilim- ler Enstitüsü. Şanlıurfa.
Özdamar, K. (2002). Paket programlar ile istatistiksel veri analizi 1. Eskişehir: Kaan Kitapevi.
Özdamar, K. (2016). Eğitim, sağlık ve davranış bilimlerinde ölçek ve test geliştirme yapısal eşit- lik modellemesi. Eskişehir: Nisan Kitabevi.
Özden, Y. (2000). Eğitimde yeni değerler. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
Özyurt, Y. (2014). Fen bilgisi öğretmenliği lisans programı dersleri ögrenme çıktılarının fen ve teknoloji öğretmenliği özel alan yeterlikleri ile örtüşme düzeyi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü. Bolu.
Saç, C. (2016). 2002-2014 yılları arasında öğretmen yetiştirme ve atama politikalarının değerlendirilmesi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Atatürk Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Ens- titüsü. Erzurum.
Sançmış, F. (2014). Zorunlu yer değiştirmiş öğretmenlerin yaşadıkları sorunların belir- lenmesi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Yeditepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü. İs- tanbul.
Seferoğlu, S. S. (2004). Öğretmen adaylarının öğretmen yeterlilikleri açısından kendile- rini değerlendirmeleri. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 26, 131- 140.
Şimşek, Ö. F. (2007). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesine giriş: Temel ilkeler ve LISREL uygulamaları.
Ankara: Ekinoks.
Tabachnick, B. G., and Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th Ed.). Boston:
Allyn ve Bacon.
Tavşancıl, E. (2006). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi (3. Baskı) Ankara: Nobel.
Tukur, M. M. (2016). Fen bilgisi öğretmeni yetiştirme programlarından mezun olan yabancı uyruklu öğretmen adaylarının programlar hakkındaki tutumları.
Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Fırat Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü. Elazığ.
Turan, E. Z. (2013). Din kültürü ve ahlak bilgisi öğretmen yetiştirme programlarına ilişkin kalite standartlarının belirlenmesi. Doktora Tezi, Necmettin Erbakan Ün- iversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü. Konya.
Türk Dil Kurumu [TDK] (2021a). “Kalite” ve “Nitelik” kavramı nedir? 15-02-2021 tarihinde https://sozluk.gov.tr/ adresinden erişilmiştir.
TDK (2021b). “Standart” kavramı nedir? 18-02-2021 tarihinde https://sozluk.gov.tr/
adresinden erişilmiştir.
Yanpar-Yelken, T., Çelikkaleli, Ö., and Çapri, B. (2007). Eğitim fakültesi kalite standart- larının belirlenmesine yönelik öğretmen adayı görüşleri. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 3(2), 191-215.
Yılmaz, A., and Aydın, S. (2017). Quality standards for the content of the program and admission to the students in science education teacher training programs. In-
Yılmaz, A. (2018). Fen bilgisi öğretmen yetiştirme programlarında kalite standartlarının belirlenmesi: Ölçek geliştirme ve uygulama çalışması. Doktora tezi. Kastamonu Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü. Kastamonu.
Yüksek Öğretim Kurulu (YÖK). (1998). Öğretmen eğitiminde akreditasyon: İngiltere ve ABD örnekleri. Ankara: YÖK.
YÖK (1999a). Eğitim fakültelerinde öğretmen yetiştirme programlarının geliştirilmesine yön ve- ren temel ilkeler. Ankara: YÖK.
YÖK (1999b). Türkiye’de öğretmen eğitiminde akreditasyon ve standartlar. YÖK/Dünya Ban- kası Milli Eğitimi Geliştirme Projesi Hizmet Öncesi Öğretmen Eğitimi. An- kara.
Kaynakça Bilgisi / Citation Information
Yılmaz, A. and Aydın S. (2021). Determination of quality standards for management and administrative services in science teacher train- ing programs. OPUS–International Joutnal of Society Researches, 17(37), 4760-4783. DOI: 10.26466/opus. 893880
